I'm hoping they are released later, or unlockable somehow. I'm getting the Spec-Ops pack, but I wouldn't say no to a Caesar and a bag-mask. Either way, considering that they're sidearms, any unbalance at all would have an extremely minuscule impact, I imagine.

/ranton
The problem with COD/BF/ETC had with imbalancing was that the imbalancing wasn't so called "Realistic" attributes. If they wanted to really be realistic, half of the weapons in FPS will have the same damage, accuracy, and handling, the main difference will be preference, quality of components and caliber. MP40 should not out damage a M1A1 Thompson, but it should have better accuracy and range. M4A1 should have the same damage as a TAR 21, FAMAS, M16, FN SCAR-L, MAGPUL MASADA, and FN F2000. their differences would be in weight, barrel length, accuracy, and fire-rate, but their damage should be the same. M14, M21, FN FAL, and FN SCAR-H will have the same aspects as the last statement.

What people have to realize is that in War Firearms have no balance, you have better weapons and you have crappy weapons. Only the UN will determine what is considered "OP" which is stupid. Since SD is using weapons with influence from real weapons, they can be balanced, COD and others are using real weapons and should be based on the real statistics not on subjective views.
/rantoff

The Hockler will probably have lower damage than the glock, better accuracy by using the VFG, and a bigger clip. It won't change the balance, it will just give a different option.

I agree,this reminds me of MoH to be honest,where weapons with little costumization have damage from 4 to 6,depens on what u choose,iron sights or red dot,stock barrel,open tip ammo etc. so u have to choose/sacrifice damage/accuracy or range.

True Eresis, the problem MOH had was that they tried to make different styles of play with the same weapon but the problem they had was that they did the same thing other FPS games have and change weapon stats based on belief instead of fact.

The problem with gamers that debate about weapon usage in a "realistic game" is that they never used firearms and think that certain guns are OP, but don't understand that guns are made to be OP, they are made to change the way war is fought like the AA-12 or the Barret M82A1, or even the M16 platform. the military uses weapons to decimate the enemy not be fair to them, tell that to Sun Tzu and he will laugh at you.

I think we've basically almost all agreed that the differences between the pistols, while enough to potentially give a slight edge to a certain player in a certain situation, probably won't make enough of a difference to matter.

Cool. So unbalanced? Yes. Unfair? Yes. Bad enough to worry us? Not a chance.

I still think having them released eventually would be good for the community.

Anyone else find it strange that an MP7 is a machine pistol while the TMP is a submachine gun even though the TMP is clearly the smaller gun?

Technically both are PDWs. And both are only roughly based on each counterpart.

So the MP9 will probably have more punch, accuracy and available attachments in BRINK, while the MP7 has a smaller magazine, quicker reload, less accuracy and is a sidearm.

The funnier thing is that the "MP" in both thier names stand for "Maschinenpistole". (Guess what that means.)